stevel

This is likely true, and I made that disclaimer. I suppose part of what I was trying to point out though is that these works sound as "symphonic" as later works, and it's fascinating that these things we usually hear - which are largely based on post-Romantic ideologies, are not in force here. Granted, a Richard Strauss orchestra has a lot more resources than an early Haydn or Mozart orchestra, yet ultimately orchestration is about how the solos, two, three, four, and even five part writing are distributed. I"m also trying to draw a parallel here - which I didn't really point out - that despite there being 4 instruments in the core ensemble, or even 7 or 8, there may still only be 2 or 3 real parts, rather than the more-discussed four (and tuttis of course, which are pretty obvious). A huge orchestra with 13+ instruments (types) may as likely not use 4 part writing just because there are more instruments available. With that many insturments though, it's unlikely there would be 2 part writing that had 5 or 6 instruments doubling each part! It would still likely be divided up between a pair of instruments (Bassoon and Violins, or Celli and Oboes, etc.) though I'm sure there are all kinds of examples. IOW, 4 part writing seems to be the "go to" with larger ensembles, or heck, ensemsbles of at least 4 instruments. But based on my admittedly early, transitional, and small sample, it seems evident that a craftsman like Haydn would not only utilize the instruments at his disposal, but would use quite a number of varied textures one might not ordinarily expect, based on the kind of "indoctrination" of 4 part writing we tend to get when we study. And yes, I agree it's an exercise, just like species counterpoint, that only has a "structural" relation to actual music. Still again, it seems like many seem to forget to mention that.

Wow, really? You think that? You think that they sucked at orchestration? I think many would disagree. Chopin - now he sucked at orchestration! I think most Orchestration texts were written first, at a time when it was first being realized one could make money from writing texts on the subject, and second, that the subject had evolved to a level where texts could be inclusive. That latter is to say that if one were to write a text on Orchestration, and want to discuss, let's say, Saxophone, then of course one must look to Romantic (and late Romantic at that, practially 20th century) scores. Likewise, hard to discuss Wagner Tubas, or the entire Oboe family, and so on. Availability of scores was also probably not what it is today, which is why R-K and the like quoted a lot from their own scores. But maybe I did choose a bad word in "Orchestration" - which I consider not only to include giant orchestras, but even string orchestras and chamber ensembles. My point was, most texts, and instruction, be it in counterpoint, orchestration, harmony, etc. tend to place emphasis - and I'd argue undue emphasis - on 4 part writing, when it makes up only a small percentage of what's out there. And while I know there are many who can't escape the behemoth that Romanticism became, I think it's worth looking to various time periods and genres to see how coposers dealt with treating melody and countermelody, and acommpaniment, etc. with various instrumental ensembles.

Here's what I've discovered: Most writing on Orchestration, Counterpoint, Harmony, etc. is basically a lie. Or, at least, they're misleading. I've have always been a proponent of studying the actual music itself, rather than reading about it. I'm sure in writing about music (as I've done it myself) one must out of necessity simplfy and omit things for pedagogical purposes. However, I just glanced at the Rimsky-Korsakov thing at Northern Sounds, and I remember my Adler, and I know Harmony texts well, etc. etc. So I decided to go to the source instead of relying on what I've been taught, and what I've read, which essentially is regurgitating the same mis-information (well intended though the authors may be). I've looked at a number of Haydn Symphonies (and Quartets) and gleaned a few "truths" from his early symphonies. Note, I've not studied these in depth or exhaustively but these are just some general observations, and of course this only represents one small segment of one small genre: In Haydn's early Symphonies, the strings are the "core" of the ensemble (as many orchestration texts get right) with the Oboes providing added color and weght to melodies, and sometimes adding rhythmic punctuation (in tandem with the horns). If a Basson is included, it merely doubles the Cello, as do the Basses - no separate part is written (and in the early symphonies, if there is a separate staff for Bassoon, it's just the same notes as Cello). Horn plays the role of sustaining harmonies, or rhythmic punctiautions, and of course idiomatic fanfares. The Oboes, when not playing a supportive role (sustained notes or punctuation) generally double the melody, a2, or Oboe 1 playes the same as the 1st Violins, and Oboe 2 plays with the 2nds. Is there any 4 Part Harmony? No. Not really. There is no "Chorale Style" writing (4 part fugues are also not something that's happening at this point in the development of the Symphony, and would be considered a "specialty" element IMHO). There are occiasionally 4 note chords, but the vast majority of these appear as "hits" - usually a V7-I cadence, or something like that. More often, we see the following: "One Part" writing - Tutti in Octaves, or smaller combinations of instruments in Octaves or Unisons. Almost always, the Viola doubles the Cello, and Octave higher, and the Violins play in unison, with those 2 parts an octave apart. If the winds are included in such passages, they play in the ranges they can (as horns were natural horns, they may not play all notes for example). "Two Part" writing. Usually 2 part counterpoint, or a Melody with a one note accompaniment, such as just bass notes on the downbeat, or a "drone" bass - long notes or pulsations on the same pitch. Almost always, Violins (1 and 2) take the melody, and Celli and Violas take the "bass line", in octaves. Here's an interesting tidbit: The Viola FREQUENTLY doubles the Cello an 8ve higher. This means, CONTRARY TO EVERY ORCHESTRATION BOOK YOU EVER READ, the Viola is ABOVE the 2nd Violin (and sometimes even the 1sts!) while playing a "bass line". One often learns there are "acceptable" situations where the Tenor (or Bass in this case) part may go above the Alto (or Soprano here!) for *musical* reasons. Haydn does it as a matter of course though. It's clear that he pretty much doesn't care. Now, since it's not a real part - the Viola acting as a "reinforcement" of the overtone of the Celli, maybe it was considered acceptable in that the Viola was sort of "subsumed" into the Cello part. Yet I've never seen any text (or anything) address this, ever. And it's common enough in the works I've scanned through (including works of other composers) that it's not just a "peculiarity" of these early symphonies, or an "unskilled" Haydn. Rarely, there might be 2 part writing between the 1st and 2nd violins, the 1st violins and Cello alone, or even rarer, the Violas and 2nd violin or something like that. But for the most part, it's the upper pair agains the lower pair, or the upper "main" (1sts) agains the lower "main" (Celli). "3 part" writing abounds. In combination with 2 part writing and tutti, really this makes up the core of the types of writing in these works, with 4 part writing being extremely rare by comparision. Most often, in 3 part textures, the 1st violins will have the melody, the 2nds the inner voice (alto) and the Celli and Violas the bass part. Again, the Violas double the Celli an 8ve up, meaning they often cross above the 2nd violins. The violins frequently play passages in 3rds and 6ths if not two independent parts. Less commonly, the Violins will play in unison with the Viola taking the inner part, and of course the Cello still being the bass. The Viola may then play in 3rds/6ths with the Cello, or 3rds/6th with the Violins. Only on specific occasions do we get textures where the 1sts have the melody, the 2nds the inner part, and the Viola takes the bass line - in those textures the Cello may still participate by punctuating the downbeat or harmonic changes with a single note (usually just duplicating the first note of Viola part as a bass). Rarely will the "bottom 3" (Vn2, Va, Vc) do 3 part harmony while the 1sts rest, or just punctuate. The only time there is anything approaching "4 part" style is when the horns participate in the texture and due to their being natural horns must play only the notes they can play, adding a 4th note to the texture that temporarily acts as a "real" part - but such events are sporadic and fleeting, and inconsistent due to the logistics of the instrument. Likewise, sometimes the violins will sustain an upper high note above the texture (either sustained, pulsating, or tremolo) that adds a 4th "real" part, but again, it acts almost more as a drone than a true player ina 4 part texture (and is not melodic at all generaly). The same is true of inner "drones" and bass "drones" as well. I have for years said that 3 part writing is under-studied, and that most texts and instruction places undue emphasis on 4 part writing. No doubt, 4 part writing is of course important, but, by placing so much emphasis on it, it makes people think it's the *primary* method of composition. And with that I'd have to disagree. 3 part writing may actually be far more prevalent and from cursory observation, analysis, and performance, my experience is that that is in fact the case. And 2 part writing is not at all uncommon. If fact, the study of these Haydn scores made me realize it - at least in the materials I've looked at - is a bigger player than 4 part writing at all. In fact, while the study of these scores confirmed some of my suspicions, I was actually surprised to see: 1. No real 4 part writing of any kind. 2. Such a large emphasis on 2 part writing. 3. The Viola's very subsidiary role (no wonder they complain so much). 4. The amount of time the Violins spend playing the same material in unison (well, they are violins, but the "4 part thinking" leads one to believe they should have the "alto" part). 5. I was suprised that Haydn's early symphonies were as techinical and as musical as they were! I have always considered Haydn a superior craftsman but I expected these early works to be "more Baroque" in nature (and they are in many ways) but it turns out he pretty much had a handle on it right from the beginning! Sure they evolved over time and things expanded, but this basic "core" was already well in place by the time he wrote these. With a few excpetions (some of Haydn's early Symphonies have Concertino elements and more virtuosic wind writing) this is basically the inception of the Symphony as we know it. I wish it were taught/explained that way. (Gauldin's books are about the best I've seen for realistic methodology out of all the "main" kind of academic texts).

As a companion thread to my other post, The Myth of Originality, I'd like to pose this thought as well: Not only when I write, do I find myself working against this - probably self-imposed) wall of trying to be original, but I find a similar issue with "complexity". Just for example, if you were to write something like say, a Sonata for Violin and Piano, it feels to me like you *have* to make it virtuosic. IOW, the bar has been set so high by other composers that I feel like I'm "supposed to" write at that level, or not work in that genre at all. If I did, I'd feel like, for instance, the Violin would have to - have to - include double-stops (at the very least), harmonics, various bowings, at least some pizz, some vituosic runs, ornaments, or figuration, and maybe some 2-part contrapuntal stuff (even if just one string open with moving notes on the adjacent string). Likewise, I'd feel like both instruments should participate in the dialog - not just have the piano soley be accompaniment. And the piano should also require some degree of "complexity". When I was a composition student, I wrote a "suite" for piano which contained a couple of short pieces that were not unlike typical "dances". There was a canon, there was a waltz, there was a rag, and there was a "melody". I can remember my composition professor saying "it's kind of 'one-fingery' isn't it?". By that he meant it was mostly just 2 parts one agains the other - a melody with either a countermelody in counterpoint, or a bass line that implied chords, or a simple accompaniment of either block chords, block chords with an "oom" for the later "pah pahs" or a simple arpeggiated pattern (usually 1 note at time in an even rhythmic value). And it was. But I look at things from Anna Magdelena, or many of hte piano pieces I had played (I'm not a real pianist or anything) and that's about the complexity those works are, and that's all I was going for. In fact, I kind of loathe unnecessary (or what I might deem as unnecessary) complexity. I guess he was thinking I should be writing something with a lot more textural, if not harmonic and rhythmic complexity, whereas I was content on writing a simple melody that sounded good to me, and trying my best to come up with an accompaniment that wasn't too sappy. And I think the same goes for all kinds of stuff - we seem to be pushed into a mindset (especially those who study in a universiy) that you need to include serialism, or aeleatoric elements, or electronic stuff, or "extended techniques" or virtuosic demands on the player, and so on. So again, if I sit down to write something, I feel there's this level of expectation out there that I need to meet - and that keeps me from trying it. And I think many composers have opted for "the easy way out" and just decide either not to write those same pieces (like not writing something called a Sonata or Concerto for example) and come up with their own thing instead, lowering the bar a bit (a divertimento, or etude...) And I think this wreaks havoc on young and beginning composers because they'll hear a "Symphony" and want to write a Symphony without the skill set or, really, any knowledge about how to do it. How many "Symphony #1"s have I seen online. How many "Opus 1" have I seen online? All of them extremely poorly written - full of ill-informed cliches and overly simplistic and completely astylistic. But I know they like it, and want to write it, and are somewhat naive, but I understand completely - because I think they too feel like there's some bar that needs to be aimed for. Is it ok to write "easy" pieces. Simple pieces. Non-virtuosic pieces? I know it is, but how do you get out of the trap of "I need to make this "more complex" so people will want to play it ot appreciate it"? I know how Rothko figured that out in art, but honestly, I think that's a bit of a cop out too :-)

My biggest problem when it comes to composing is the fear that what I write "sounds like something else" or as soon as I start, it "reminds me of something else". My intellect tells me that there are thousands if not tens of thousands of classical period works that have elements that sound alike - Alberti Bass, triadic melody, etc. Yet I can't help this feeling that I should not be regurgitating the same old stuff. What's funny is, when I'm "songwriting" popular style music, I could care less in many cases. I think what happens is, certain things become "non-issues" for me. I'm much more likely to try to write a Surf or Western style song and when I do, I WANT to incorporate all the cliches! And if the chord progression in my Surf tune is I-bVII-bVI-V, I don't care because it's part and parcel of the style - it's almost as if you you *have* to have a progression like that, but because it's such a part of the style, it's a non-issue. In other words, it's not my fault I incorporated that aspect because basically, it's expected. But when I'm "composing", I think I fall into this trap of "I have to be original" - but I know, I can't *really* be original because my choices are informed by my experiences. So I was messing around tonight with a little melody and accompaniment (see - already falling into an "expected" trap!) The accompaniment was an "expansion and contraction" in eve note values, like so: Db-C-Db-D-Eb-D-Eb-F Ab-A-Ab-G-Gb-G-Gb-F So essentially the two parts moving in opposite motion in semitone increments, expanding and contracting. When I got to the F I put a 4th in the melody and then paired the melody with the inner voice and did the same pattern and then the melody went to the remaing voice. One could continue a cycle like this for a while. The melody itself was just diatonic initial - with an intent on picking notes that weren't already part of the dyad being played primarily. So this is nice, but it reminds me of many of the turn of the century (to 20th century) Russian composers - Stravinksy - maybe some little Khatchaturian piano pieces. So suddenly I'm like "well it sounds like that". I like it because it doesn't sound "too classical", and sounds "more modern", but at the same time, it sounds "dated" to me. But someone like Khatchaturian (if I'm remembering who it was correctly) had a slew of these little piano pieces with a diatonic melody and chromatic accompanament (mabe they were all inspired by the Chopin Em Prelude). So obviously these guys didn't necessarily feel like they were stealing from themselves (though on some level, it might have been their "thing"). But if I do it, I feel like it's a cheap imitation. I have written what one might call "purpose" pieces - you know, I want to write something that sounds like "a film intro" ("epic" style) and I do. Or a little string 4tet thing that sounds like what you might hear during some drug commercial (classical style). Or I might do a harpsichord fugue or something (in Baroque style). But I'm just doing that to make something that sounds like something else. So when I'm trying to compose "my own" stuff, I don't want it to sound like these other things. I guess, I just don't have the skill set to "have my own voice" but I also feel like much of the music I gravitate to is what we might call "popular classical", including film scores that are essentially Romantic Period leftovers (though I do like a lot of modernistic music, and electronic composition (not EDM) and so on). What i need is for this "it sounds like something else" to become a non-issue, like when I'm doing "intentionally trying to sound like" music. Does anyone else struggle with this? If so, what helps you to get around it? I realize finding one's own voice is the most difficult thing of course, but this "it sounds like something I've heard before" issue is basically keeping me from writing anything "origianal" and all I can get done is cheap imitations of music I'm intentionally writing to make people go "hey that sounds like...". Thoughts?

Well, you all did well because I hadn't even considered the Divisi vs. Double Stops question. I assumed Divisi. I was noticing that there were no 5ths in the strings parts but one can argue that 6ths are more "sonorous" anyway. But there are a couple of 4ths in the Viola. I hadn't thought of the possibility of Double Stops though - of course 5hts are much harder to play on strings, whereas 6ths (and to some degree 4ths) are much easier to finger. So these choices, much like the restricted notes of the Horns, could be one of logisitcs. What would now be interesting would be to go back to other scores and see if this holds true for his subsequent string parts - if it's a generality across the board...

None, all, or any of the above. Composition is simply "creating" or "putting together". On some rudimentary level, it may just be part of a biological need to create something that "goes beyond" the creator. Not unlike humanitiy's need to precreate in order to continue the species we build buildings, and monuments, and create social systems, and works of art, and so on. It would be nice if everything were done for completely altruistic reasons but certainly, any of these things can be done as much for personal gain as societal gain. I suppose, in a free society, it's up to each person to discover what drives them to create. Actually, I take that back. For some, it really doesn't matter why, it's that they *must*, so they do.

I'm no longer what would be considered "young" by young people, nor am I a beginner at composition (which "young" could be taken to mean in translation) but I am relatively new to orchestration. Though I've taken courses, read many texts, and so on, there is no substitute for "learning from the masters" IMHO so I've been going back and doing what I should have done years ago, which is to study scores and see what composers did. Now, I'm also a "modernist" so I don't compose in a "classical" style, so I know we've moved on from that. But for the sake of "learning a specific tradition", I wanted to tackle this. So I'm looking at Mozart's very first Symphony, the score for which can be found here: http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usimg/b/b0/IMSLP00033-Mozart_-_Symphony_No_01_in_Eb_Major__K16.pdf I'm curious why he made the choices he made. Now, granted, Mozart was EIGHT at the time of this composition. It's highly likely he just didn't know what he was doing yet :-) Of course, we can argue how much genius he had all day long but even with the god-like status we've ascribed to his early feats, it's still within the realm of possibility that he just didn't have the life experience to make "correct" choices here. But I do think his choices were at least deliberate, if not informed. If I had this theme, I would have orchestrated the opening 3 measures just like he did - except I might have had the horns in unison. But, it's pretty logical to me. Measure 4-11 is where the "logic" falls apart for me - or rather, I just can't see any. No problem with the bass voice - it makes perfect sense and only the Celli/DB are doing it. The Oboes also seem to be completely logical, playing the important notes of the 7-6 suspension figures (aside from the first G octave which is a little out of kilter). And I know at this time the horns would be natural horns, so they had to play notes they could play, rather than any note you wanted them to. That's why they have Eb, F, and G, and Bb. Largely logical choices to me. But the upper strings... I mapped out the first 3 chords and I can't find very much logic in the choices being made. They are "interlocked" in that one instrument from another group is in between the notes of any one group, but beyond that I can't see any rhyme or reason for the notes chosen. Looking at the 4 part harmony, I do in fact see where some "proper voice leading" is taking place at least in the lower octave (where the bulk of the strings are). But other than that, the choices seem rather random to me. It's funny for example, that on the first chord the G (lower note of the oboe octave) is so heavily weighted. The distribution becomes more even (2 parts on any one note) as it progesses but it's still - let's just say, not what I would do. I would do something "more consistent". But I don't know that mine would come out "good" just because it's "consistent". So, why? P.S. I'm looking for serious answers from experienced individuals, not just "because he was Mozart" or things like that! I realize this isn't a well-travelled forum but I'm hoping there are at least some experienced orchestrators participating and people who are familiar with classical harmony, etc.